[Gallagher]

My issue with that logic is the fact that "flaws" and "defects" are so subjective, and in practice are even harder to pick out.

The first issue being, how could you equate flaw to a defect? Is being obnoxiously loud equal to having a lazy eye? How would you even, what?

But let's say you can work out a system, something awesome and poetic, like the shallow turning blind or some other nonsense. Then the issue becomes, how do you define a personality flaw in the first place?

In purest form, there is nothing inherently wrong with any character traits. You only start to pick out flaws once you apply boundaries to what's acceptable - boundaries defined by such fickle things as age, gender, race, nationality... not to mention society as a whole, and the current situation in which two people are interacting. Being kind in some situations is, obviously, good, but in others it's naive or dangerous. Obviously people have to learn how to change the way they behave to survive (either literally or socially), and certain personalities will be better suited to some than others.

If that isn't complicated enough, you also have to consider how our behaviors are shaped by the ways we're raised. Some people, sadly, never overcome the negative influences in their lives. They always hang onto the negative behaviors and/or thinkings they learn. What counts in that situation? What others see, or the underlying personality?

In settings like ours, all "flaws" would only be perceived ones, I think. And the spirit doesn't give a shit about the rules you try to set for it. You might as well try and pick out a flawed set of fingerprints.

You can't. You have one, or you don't.